Victor Balada Diaz wrote: > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 04:02:43PM +0100, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote: > > Victor Balada Diaz wrote: > > >I think /etc/settings.conf is a poor choice for a file name. It's > > > too generic. Why don't we call it /etc/pkgs.conf or something like > > > that? > > > > The rationale was to have a generic file to put in various settings, > > so that we don't have to add a file for each single configuration. > > > > I'd like to have a config file which is similar to rc.conf, just not > > for rc but for the system configuration. > > That's a very bad idea. rc.conf does have one task, and does it > well. settings.conf can be used for a lot of different apps that > have nothing in common. If you look at windows world, that reminds > me of the registry: one place shared by a lot of apps that have > become a huge mess. > > On unix world the philosophy is to have a lot of small apps that do > one task and do it well, so i think that with configuration files > we should do the same. > > In this case i think the best thing for just one setting would be > an environment variable.
+1 -- Hasso Tepper
